M K JAMES Vs. GEORGE JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants in O. P. 886 of 1980, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (in short, the Tribunal) are the appellants. THE respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents in this appeal also. THE said O. P. was tried alongwith O. P. No. 885 of 1980 and a common award dated 31-3-1982 was passed by the Tribunal. THE 1st petitioner in O. P. No. 886 of 1980 is the sole petitioner in O. P. No. 885 of 1980 THE 2nd petitioner in O. P. 886 of 1980 is the wife of the 1st petitioner. THE petitioners were travelling in their car KRF 1389 with two children and a servant in Kottayam-Ernakulam route on 7-1-1979. At a place on the northern side of the Appanchira bridge, within the jurisdiction of the Kaduthuruthy Police Station, lorry bearing registration No. KLO 4239, driven by the 1st respondent bit against the front right half of the car. THE force of impact was great. THE lorry was a petrol tanker. THE 3rd respondent is the owner of the petrol tanker and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. In the accident the Ist petitioner suffered severe injuries. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital for 7 days and later in the Lissy Hospital, Ernakulam. He sustained partial disability. In the accident the son of the petitioners-Jose-aged 13, died. He was a brilliant student studying in the Chinmaya Mission High School. THE 1st petitioner, Dr. James, belongs to a family having high longevity. His father, aged 72, is still alive. His mother, aged 65, is stilt alive. For the severe pain, loss of earnings and injury sustained, Dr. James claimed a sun of Rs. 52,000/- as compensation in M. V. O. P. 885 of 1980 In this M. V. O. P. 886 of 1980, Dr. James and his wife claimed Rs 1,48,000/-as compensation for the death of their son jose. Defendants 1 and 3 disputed the claim. It was stated that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent (driver of the lorry)and the accident happened due to the negligence of 'dr. James himself. THE amount claimed was stated to be excessive. THE insurance company also adopted the same contentions. THE Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest as compensation in OP. No. 885 of 1980. We are not concerned with that O. P. in this appeal. In the O. P. 886 of 1980, wherein James and bis wife claimed a sum of Rs. l,48,000/- as compensation for the death of their son, Jose, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 27,000/. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award of compensation, the claimants have come up in appeal.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mathews P. Mathew and also counsel for the respondents. In this case the Tribunal noticed that Jose was a brilliant boy, aged 13 years, that the parents belonged to a respectable well-to-do family, there is good family background for the boy, ext. A9 certificate issued from the Chinmaya Mission High School shows that the boy had a very good character, that he could have risen to some position in life and he could have contributed to the happiness of the petitioners during their old age and considering the high rate of inflation, the family background and the scholastic achievements of the boy, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of happiness and support and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. Counsel for the appellants argued that an arbitrary sum has been awarded without reckoning factual details. It was argued that deceased Jose was brilliant boy. He belonged to a well-to-do family. His father, grand-father, father's brother and others occupied very covetable positions in life and the boy was very brilliant and possessed an excellent character and be could have risen to good positions in life and could have contributed to the happiness and welfare of the petitioners during their old age. It was submitted that the parents could afford good education to the boy and be bad a good future. The value of prospective services and loss of pecuniary benefit in the context of high rate of inflation and family background were not at all adverted to. In fact no principle was applied or borne in mind in awarding arbitrarily a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- as against Rs. 1,48,000/-claimed. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the case of a boy aged 13 years, award of compensation is beset with a series of imponderables and it is not possible to predicate the exact future of the boy. the scholastic and other achievements he may acquire in future or the benefit be could have bestowed on his parents during their old age and so it is only possible to award a lump sum on an ad hoc basis. It was submitted that there is no principle for computing damages in favour of parents in the case of fatal accident to their children.